Score #1 positions announced for Civ V updates, but _not_ for Civ IV updates?

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Moderator Action: I moved these posts over to this thread in the Civ4 forum as they were off topic in the Civ5 update discussion thread.

A number of players earned Gold Medals this update:

Fastest Finish (Date):
Foamfollower - 1750 AD, Turn 260, 1996 points, Chieftain, Diplomacy, Standard, Small, Continents, Gandhi
ORTRO_16 - 3625 BC, Turn 25, 8400 points, Settler, Domination, Marathon, Duel, Pangaea, Oda Nobunaga
ORTRO_16 - 3160 BC, Turn 21, 4750 points, Settler, Domination, Standard, Duel, Inland Sea, Darius I
Tabarnak - 1960 BC, Turn 51, 4080 points, Warlord, Domination, Standard, Small, Lakes, Askia

Score:
khrax - 18895 points, 1914 AD, Turn 334, Chieftain, Diplomacy, Standard, Small, Continents, Gandhi
cetti - 3383 points, 2018 AD, Turn 438, Prince, Culture, Standard, Standard, Small Continents, Oda Nobunaga
Peets - 26801 points, 2050 AD, Turn 330, Settler, Time, Quick, Large, Inland Sea, Napoleon
clint0601 - 4785 points, 350 BC, Turn 101, Warlord, Domination, Standard, Small, Lakes, Askia

Why are Score #1 positions (Gold Medals) announced for Civ V, but #1 Scores are _not_ announced for Civ IV updates?

Is score for Civ V a more meaningful measure of accomplishment than score for Civ IV?

It seems that score for Civ V is given a more or less equal weighting to date #1 positions. ("Fastest Finish (Date)" above precedes "Score" alphabetically.) Whereas for Civ IV, score #1 positions aren't even mentioned in Civ IV updates.

Just trying to understand why score is given far greater importance in Civ V updates versus score in Civ IV updates.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Denniz]

Civ4 was build around Fast Finish only. Score doesn't have offical tables there.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Civ4 was build around Fast Finish only. Score doesn't have offical tables there.

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/index.php

Row #6 in the above Civ IV HoF tables page is labeled "Score". Where is it explained that these "Score" tables are _not_ official tables?

Thanks,

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Denniz]

There is nowhere that says about score being anything one way or another. If you look closely the most you can see is that Score is treated like a victory condition. There is no way to get a table by Victory Condition, Map Type, Map Size and Speed ranked by Score except possibly with the ad-hoc queries. Those queries are not in anyway the official Hall of Fame.

Only superslug or Dianthus can tell us whether they intented for Score to be an offical table as a Victory condition. It has always been my impression that is not. Since it is already there regardless, what I think probably doesn't matter that much.

Making a whole new set of tables based on score like we did with Civ5 was never considered as part of the design. Retrofitting Civ4, while possible, would involve a certain amount of thought and work. (I.e. how would it affect the QM and EQM, etc.)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^ I wouldn't advocate bothering with those levels of work. Score is a cute thing to look at when one finishes a game, but the sad reality is that it only loosely correlates to how well one has played. At best. HoF's priority on finish date for civ is the right one IMO. There aren't so many junk behaviors that influence it but don't really help one's victory odds using #turns as a metric. There are a TON of those things with score (deliberately growing pop into unhappiness, putting off a won game to milk it with corps, careful manipulation of end game tech trades, etc etc).

For almost 1/2 of the difficulty levels in civ IV, a "time/score" victory involves deliberately avoiding winning the game so that you can win time. For a finish that can be competitive in the tables, that is true of all of them.

It's a neat thing to check, and would be nice to see if it didn't require significant effort investment to display it readily. However, it is definitely not worth real effort IMO.

 

[Manco Capac]

It's a neat thing to check, and would be nice to see if it didn't require significant effort investment to display it readily. However, it is definitely not worth real effort IMO.

However, there is a sad fact in HoF/XOTM games: score make the difference between first or second, while score doesn't have any impact in SGOTM where the date counts the most and two or more teams may gain the same award. Of course, nothing would be more frustrating to spend 4 months on the finesse towards fastest victory path to end up second because of score.

Anyways, that is why I always keep in mind to milk score within the limits imposed by a grand strategy to assure me better chances to win first.

 

[Seraiel]

^ I wouldn't advocate bothering with those levels of work. Score is a cute thing to look at when one finishes a game, but the sad reality is that it only loosely correlates to how well one has played. At best. HoF's priority on finish date for civ is the right one IMO. There aren't so many junk behaviors that influence it but don't really help one's victory odds using #turns as a metric. There are a TON of those things with score (deliberately growing pop into unhappiness, putting off a won game to milk it with corps, careful manipulation of end game tech trades, etc etc).

For almost 1/2 of the difficulty levels in civ IV, a "time/score" victory involves deliberately avoiding winning the game so that you can win time. For a finish that can be competitive in the tables, that is true of all of them.

It's a neat thing to check, and would be nice to see if it didn't require significant effort investment to display it readily. However, it is definitely not worth real effort IMO.

But aren't all the things you mention (the junk-behaviours as you call them) specific tactics that are used good by some or even better by others? I don't know how much effort it would be, but I surely would like a change there, actually milking a game and scoring high is an art of itself like early domination, cultural victory, diplomatic, or any other VC.

 

[Denniz]

Retrofitting Civ4, while possible, would involve a certain amount of thought and work. (I.e. how would it affect the QM and EQM, etc.)

By "certain amount", I meant a significant amount. More than seems worth it under the circumstances.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Making a whole new set of tables based on score like we did with Civ5 was never considered as part of the design. Retrofitting Civ4, while possible, would involve a certain amount of thought and work. (I.e. how would it affect the QM and EQM, etc.)

By "certain amount", I meant a significant amount. More than seems worth it under the circumstances.

I'm _not_ expecting a redesign of the Civ IV HoF tables. I'd say that one row of Score (as it exists today) to eight Victory Condition rows is the proper balance for Civ IV.

Is it possible to simply announce the new #1 Scores each update from the existing Score row of the HoF tables?

Thanks,

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Ozbenno]

Is it possible to simply announce the new #1 Scores each update from the existing Score row of the HoF tables?

This should be possible, will do it next update and see how much extra work is involved.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

This should be possible, will do it next update and see how much extra work is involved.

Thank you, Ozbenno!

My apologies to Denniz and the rest of the HoF staff for not making myself clear in my first post of this thread.

Sun Tzu Wu